Inclusivism

                In this post I will make an argument for inclusivism from a purely philosophical viewpoint. I might undertake the viewpoint from a biblical standpoint in future posts, but this post will deal with the logical problems created by a restrictivist view of salvation. Now, I won’t go into depth about Calvinism, which are the largest proponents of restritivism, but will only deal with the view from a primarily Arminian understanding, implying a somewhat libertarian free will on the part of the individual. Calvinism answers many of the philosophical problems that I will address, but in turn creates as many problems as it answers. So now onto my essay.

In my earlier posts I talked of an inclusive view of the Kingdom of God. However, this I feel is a misrepresentation of my viewpoint, and I would like to explain more thoroughly what I mean. Usually, when one speaks of inclusivism it is translated as uncertainty or relativism. In our post-modern age we are reluctant to make truth claims on virtue, vice, religion and politics, because of this we include every form of doctrine under the sun and proclaim fellowship with those who are in complete opposition to our ideals, only if they are as uncertain as we are. The only rule is that there are no rules. However, by expanding the umbrella of truth, we destroy truth. This is not intend to say by talking of an inclusive Kingdom of God. Christianity makes definite truth claims that cannot be overlooked without the loss of its integrity and distinction as a religion. We say Jesus is the Son of God, so we cannot proclaim that he is also the Son of the devil, nor can we accept others under the banner of Christianity those who believe such a doctrine. This means that those who believe such a doctrine cannot be called Christians otherwise the term "Christian" loses any importance as a name. However, I want to make a distinction between the religion of Christianity on earth and the salvation of souls, if such a distinction can be made. We should not compromise the truth in order to gather others to us, but instead focus on God and point others into his direction.

Think of it like this, to call something a tree is to place an object in the category of trees, and to say that this object has tree-like qualities. But if we start calling every object under the sun a tree, the word ceases to be of any importance and becomes a useless word that categorizes a deal too many objects. In short, the word loses its distinction. So when we call someone a "Christian", what are we saying? We are saying that he exhibits qualities peculiar to Christianity, which are the qualities peculiar to Christ our God. We are also saying that he/she follows Christ and uses Him not just as a role model for good behavior, but also as an object worthy of worship due to his divine nature. Lastly, we are saying that they adhere to the basic tenants of the Christian religion as given to us by Christ and the apostles. Now, I understand that these basic tenants can be in fact up for interpretation in many ways, so let’s just say that a Christian is someone that worships God as He is expressed through Christ, and that the qualities of Christ are the same qualities he wishes to possess. Regardless of any understanding of Sola Fide, the trinity, penal substitution or Sola Scriptura, this is what I believe makes a Christian, a Christian. When we say salvation is due to anything but Christ, I do believe we commit a grave error. My salvation isn’t due to me believing in Orthodox or the Trinity, but the revelation of God as Christ, who gave himself up for my salvation. As long as we have the right finish line, which is the image of Christ, the starting point seems to me to be of little importance.

To makes this point, I will make the assumption that whoever first comes to Christ has an imperfect understanding of the Christian religion as whole. This includes matters pertaining to God’s character, matters pertaining to what constitutes sin, and matters pertaining to the various correct or Orthodox doctrines. This assumption is one that I believe even in the most astute, fundamentalist would accept, if not consciously, at least in practice. For example, we include very young Christians into our fold, despite the fact that they more than likely misunderstand many of the doctrines of Christianity and have an imperfect understanding of sin. This also includes those who are uneducated and slow-minded. I have little doubt that an uneducated child will not be able to understand the trinity in its proper sense, or the various interpretations of atonement, or have perfect understanding of sin, given the fact that these all continue to baffle theologians to this day. So perfect understanding does not make someone a Christian, even when it pertains to major doctrines within the Christian faith, such as the trinity, atonement theories or matters of sin. If you still have doubts, consider the Ethiopian Eunuch. Did he have a grasp on the trinity? What about matters of sin or atonement theories? Probably not, but we do not go against scripture and consider him less of a Christian.

I’m also going to ask that when we speak of the trinity or matters of atonement, what are we actually talking about? Most people interpret it as meaning that if you were asked whether you believed in the trinity, then you would reply, “Yes”. But does this constitute belief? If I say I believe in the moon, what do I mean? Essentially, I am saying, with a measure of certainty, that the moon exists and that this existence is confirmed by reality, which in turns allows a concrete idea/image to form. I am certain the moon exists because I have seen it, and so my certainty of its existence is fairly high. Also, when I say “moon” a concrete form arises in my mind that correlates to the actual object. We can grasp the idea of the moon because A) it exists and B) there are things like it in our material world that relate to it. Even a blind person can understand the moon because when you describe it with words the blind man can search his past sensory memory to relate to the description, and thus, is able to form a concrete idea. However, make no mistake the idea in my mind regarding the moon is not the actual moon, but an imperfect replica of the actual object.

However, this does not work with the trinity. When I say God exists as three persons that are unique, but that each make up one substance, God, who is one, I am unable to rely on sensory knowledge to understand this concept. It has no form in my mind outside of a vague mist. People try to use analogies to relate it to man, but no such analogies are used in the bible. If a-biblical analogies are needed to comprehend the idea, how can the idea be an essential matter for salvation and fellowship? If you tell me Bob and Jim and Sue are three unique people that constitute the same being called Dan, I would call you a lunatic. Likewise, the trinity is a concept that lies outside our realm of experience. It can’t be properly understood because it exists in a realm above our own. While knowledge of this realm is certainly beneficial it serves little purpose to suppose that a specific knowledge about this realm is required for salvation, especially when the knowledge is incomprehensible to man.

 One objection to this might be that Christ certainly exists apart from our realm, but belief in him is required for salvation. To this I agree. However, I will say that Christ exists simultaneously between the earthly and spiritual realms, allowing for man to understand the one through the other. Before Christ existed, God was merely an abstract idea to man with no concrete image to correspond to his nature. With Christ, man is able to understand the image of God through his Son, who works as a mediator between Humanity and the Father. Christ fixes the communication barrier that existed due to the distinct natures of man and God. Think of it like this, God can only understand the problems of man fully by becoming man. Before Christ, God could not fully relate to man because God was unlike man. He couldn’t experience sin, death, temptation, starvation or the suffering that pervades life because he existed apart from these things. However, through Christ, God became man and allowed himself to become subjected to temptations and suffering, in order to relate to man. The veil that separated God from man was torn, and Man and God could relate to one another through Christ. Through Christ, man could understand the nature of God and God could understand the nature of man. This allowed man to understand the spiritual realm not as an abstract idea, but a concrete idea. The idea of God became as concrete as the idea of the moon, so to speak.

 Moreover, these doctrines hold no relevance for us in daily life. I will differentiate daily life of a layperson from the role of the church as a whole. They certainly hold weight as a doctrine guiding the church but not so for the average man. The average man goes about life hardly conjuring up the image of God as the trinity. A Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian will likely be impossible to differentiate in daily living, with all else being similar. It’s not as if a man should conduct himself in a manner pleasing to Christ only because he is a believer in the trinity. This idea serves little purpose for the average layman and only is of interest to scholars and teachers. These ideas to the layman are misty ideas that exist in their minds as half-formed entities. Can we even have a full understanding of the trinity or the matters of atonement? I would answer that both of these are impossible to understand in their fullest sense. So we accept that God forgives us in our error regarding the trinity, but denies us if we are in complete error regarding it? This appears to me as inconsistent. Most people would probably agree with the statement that the trinity is not a pre-requisite for salvation, but there exists some who would disagree.

So we have come to the conclusion that a Christian does not need a perfect understanding of Orthodoxy to be considered a Christian. For some, this will seem inherently obvious, yet for many this concept escapes their grasp. This means that all those who profess that Christ is lord and savior, can be considered a Christian in some sense of the word, and that if they proclaim a doctrine contrary to orthodox Christianity, they still retain the name of Christian, but are said to have a less than perfect understanding as a whole. Consider this, if indeed a young Christian can have an imperfect understanding, or even a false understanding, yet be considered a Christian, what makes this so? I believe Tolstoy has keen insight into this dilemma. Tolstoy considers righteousness not the point of holiness in relation to God, but the velocity in which you are moving towards God.

To put it more clearly, consider this illustration. If God’s righteousness is the point we wish to attain, then invariably he would be at the far end of a line measuring distance. So attaining God’s righteousness is like reaching the Sun from the earth. On that line a Pharisee or a thief might occupy various positions in regards to one another. A Pharisee might be closer to God’s righteousness, but his net movement might be heading in the opposite direction. While a thief might be further away from God than the Pharisee, but he might be traveling faster towards the end goal, thus making the thief more righteous than the Pharisee. So it’s not about where you are at, but how fast you are attaining the end goal, the image of God expressed through Christ. So what makes someone a Christian, despite having a false understanding, is the ability to be taught, or to reduce it down even further, the aspect of humility. This aspect of humility allows the Christian to be taught and led by God to produce fruit. I believe this is what it means to have a “good and honest heart”. It also allows someone to forsake his way of life, when another more viable option arises, and is one of the reasons for the condemnation of the Pharisees. They were prideful in their knowledge, so prideful that they were unwilling to be taught by God, sounds like many of the hard headed Christians now a days.

Now let’s throw the pagan into the mix. How do these conclusions affect the non-believer? First, let us address the image of God. I will begin with this assumption, that each man serves a God that is a replica or imperfect image of the actual God. To prove this, I will begin by asking the question, what do we mean by God? When we say God, what are we talking about? Surely, when a Muslim talks of God he means something different than a Christian or a Hindu. Let’s take this further, and say when a Calvinist talks about God, he means something different than a Pentecostal, open-theist, for they both hold a different image of who God is and how he acts. My God is different than your God. We might agree on many of the attributes of God, but ultimately he means different things to both of us. The actions of your God in a given scenario might appear differently than the actions my God might pursue. This image of God acts like a shadow of the actual entity of God. We use the same term for two different objects, but we do believe, at least many of us do, that there is a God that exists a part from our feeble understandings of Him, and we use the word/name God to denote Him. It also means that we cannot view God objectively, or better yet, disconnected from our experience as a self. There is no objective believer and everyone views God in a subjective way, or more clearly, we cannot disconnect our understanding of God from ourselves (I will continue this thought later). Now idolatry is represented in the Bible as worship towards something different from God. At first glance, this seems to be something of which we are all guilty, but this term isn’t used as such in the Bible. So clearly there is a way to picture God that is healthy, and a way to picture him that is idolatrous. Despite the fact that both pictures are in fact misunderstandings, one errs greater than the other and is deemed idolatrous.

 I will use the Westborough Baptists as an example of having an idolatrous view of God. They serve a God quite different from my own, and as far as I can see it, different from the one displayed by Christ. This would constitute idolatry, since their error seems to me quite large. What I mean by their errors being large is that they hold to beliefs about God that aren’t merely wrong, but antagonistic to God. They also seem to be unwilling to subject themselves to the Holy Spirit’s guidance in order to achieve a more perfect image of God. However, we just claimed that one could have an imperfect understanding of God, and still be saved as long as they are moving towards the true image of God with a positive velocity. This sort of dirties the water a little bit, and shows how difficult it is to judge someone’s heart. Thankfully, I am not called to do such a thing. So on to my next point, which is that as long as they are moving towards the image of God expressed by Christ, I believe non-believers can be saved.

I am going to combine the past two conclusions we have made, regarding our subjective image of God and the velocity in which we pursue him, and hopefully create a new interpretation regarding them. First, let us say that each person is uniquely made by God. We are not homogeneous creatures, but all of us have a unique identity, let’s call this our soul. Our unique identity naturally creates a sort of knowledge that remains separate from those around us. Our knowledge will always differ slightly from everyone else’s because our sensory experiences will always remain different. This means that our knowledge of the truth will always appear slightly different as well. Each version might be true, but will only contain a portion of the truth, not the whole truth. This does not mean that people cannot be wrong in regards to their beliefs, but only that the truthfulness or falseness of their beliefs is not complete. Man cannot be completely in the truth nor completely in the wrong, we can only occupy a middle way that contains some truth and some errors.

For example, let’s say we have a group of individuals surrounding a mountain. Then let’s have each person take a picture of that same mountain. Each photo will naturally be of the same mountain, but each photo will also appear slightly different from each other. Is any one photo most true? Or are they all false representations of the mountain? Can they all be true given the perspective each person has? I believe the same goes for God. This means that God will appear differently to different people from different locations, but all can be said to be looking at the same God. Now, some might be looking at only the edge of the mountain and thus get an incomplete view of God as a whole, while others might be head on and get a more complete view of God. While still others might be looking at a completely different mountain and be error in their view of God, some error not complete error, for I don’t believe man can be in complete error about God. For even if someone would say that man is God, his error would not be complete, because is not man a sort of image of God? He would be wrong in the sense that man is certainly not God, but man does resemble God in many ways. Instead of looking at a mountain, he might be looking at a cliff or a valley, but he would not be looking at a duck or a stick. So, as long as man grasps some form of truth, they grasp some form of God. God is truth. Truth is God. More precisely, God is Jesus, who is the way, the truth and the life. Even an atheist, I would venture is not completely in error, but retains a measure of truth within him. I have yet to meet someone that is antagonistic in every way towards goodness and truth, but Isn’t it true that most men agree on more things that they disagree? This is due to the image of God that resides in man.  

Faith towards God can thus be interpreted as a movement towards your image of God. Isn’t it true that many adherents to other religions hold a view of God that resembles Christ in many ways? Certainly, a Hindu’s view of God corresponds with our view of God in many ways quite nicely. They might believe that he is a personal God, who is omnipotent and omniscience and loving. They might also conduct their lives based upon these facts, and live a life that is often times indistinguishable to that of a Christian. Couldn’t this be called faith? Isn’t relying on the mercy of God and conducting your life in a manner that corresponds to your image of God, a kind of faith? If their image of God corresponds with the image of God revealed in Christ, couldn’t this faith be called a saving faith?

Just some thoughts that have appeared to me. Now, some might call this is a works based salvation, and not a salvation by grace through faith alone, and this might be true . However, I believe God is working on every single person on this earth. He is calling them to himself, and wishing and hoping that they might turn to his light and image. I believe that God works through the God already in mankind. If mankind is created in the image of God, then there is an aspect of God in every one of us. Just as there is evil in the most righteous of men, apart from Christ who was perfect, there is a little bit of God in the vilest of men, hidden deep beneath the dirt and sludge of sin. When God works through man he works through this image of himself that lays deep within man. He calls man to himself through himself. Some might call this a work, and maybe it is. If God utilizes the part of himself in man to save man, then how much can man truly boast about his salvation? As far as I can see, only Calvinism has a perfect solution to this problem, and this at the expense of the free-will of man and a host of other problems.